New iPad, Y U no have name? The Ars Open Forum discusses Apple’s iPad event

Ars readers discuss the business implications of Apple's new iPad announcement.

Apple's much anticipated iPad event revealed a new iPad, which wasn't named iPad 3, nor iPad HD, as rumors had predicted. Ars OpenForum members have been discussing the new offerings from Apple, and it's only just starting. After all, the iPad won't show up in users' hands until March 16.

Apple didn't give this new version of the iPad a special name. How did you feel about this? In my case, I was more interested in new features (like that retina display) than in naming conventions.

A lot of the discussion on the forum has centered on some of the business implications of the new iPad for Apple in the near and long-term future.

japtor thinks it's much to do with timing on Apple's part: "The iPad timing is basically too soon in the cycle for an all new design so it gets an upgraded part that can get done in time. Next year will probably be another big performance jump as they just keep up with what they have available."

Meanhile, Sulis says, "One of the best arguments in favour of Apple's high-value approach is that the TCO looks very good compared to the random tablets that have been spewed out by its dive-for-the-bottom competitors. Old iPads have high residual value, which means that the overall cost of upgrading for the early-adopters is a lot less painful. This wouldn't happen if the older iPads were suddenly rendered unattractive…I'm happy where Apple is on this one."

Did you order an iPad after Wednesday's announcement? If so, what were the reasons that helped you make your decision? Join us in the forum thread and in the comments area to discuss. If you're new, simply register for an account and join in. And don't forget to look for a full roundup of iPad articles (including the official Ars review), after the device hits the public on March 16th.

91 Reader Comments

Well, I think they're trying to just have a unique name. There is only the iMac...though several models and versions. There is only the MacBook Pro... distinguished only by the screen sizes. Perhaps they're trying to streamline everything.

Well, I think they're trying to just have a unique name. There is only the iMac...though several models and versions. There is only the MacBook Pro... distinguished only by the screen sizes. Perhaps they're trying to streamline everything.

It's possible this may be part of a longer term strategy for all their product lines. Instead of numbers, they may simply release new versions of each device. Perhaps.

The Retina display was really the clincher for me. 1080p + perfect text for reading makes for a great consumption device.

Sulis' point about it being future-proof also hits home. I just purchased a Kindle Fire and for $200, I don't expect it to last more than a year or two before it's eclipsed by something better. This iPad, though, I'm pretty sure will last longer than a laptop of equivalent cost (about $1000 for 64gb + Verizon + applecare + cover): iOS seems, so far, to perform better on older devices than OS X, and upgrading is less of a necessity (i.e., I can run older versions of iOS for longer than I can run older versions of OS X). So I'm expecting this $1000 purchase to last at least 5 years, and hopefully much longer.

The Retina display was really the clincher for me. 1080p + perfect text for reading makes for a great consumption device.

Sulis' point about it being future-proof also hits home. I just purchased a Kindle Fire and for $200, I don't expect it to last more than a year or two before it's eclipsed by something better. This iPad, though, I'm pretty sure will last longer than a laptop of equivalent cost (about $1000 for 64gb + Verizon + applecare + cover): iOS seems, so far, to perform better on older devices than OS X, and upgrading is less of a necessity (i.e., I can run older versions of iOS for longer than I can run older versions of OS X). So I'm expecting this $1000 purchase to last at least 5 years, and hopefully much longer.

Well put. For many users, iPad 1 is going strong for them, especially if it's used for casual consumption like music and reading.

I think they are trying to remove the distinction between versions of their tablet in the future. For the average idiot, Apple's target demographic, "iPad" is just about how complex they can go without confusing their users.

It's interesting: Apple is pretty clearly pushing the limits of manufacturing, component cost, battery life, device size, device weight, processing speed, memory, storage, and retail cost. It's fairly obvious that they've got all those compromises balanced and stretched tight as a drum (giving up three-tenths of a millimeter in device thickness in order to keep the battery life the same; keeping the capacities the same while delivering the new camera/new screen, etc.) Tim Cook was known for his mastery of the supply-chain economics; it's notable that he was Jobs' successor (rather than, for example, Forestal or Ive); this indicates Apple's essential focus on the balances and tolerances of hardware creation.

And yet, every time they launch a new product, I keep seeing "disappointed" reactions about what they "should" have added (more storage; Siri etc.) as if Apple wasn't working extremely hard to balance the manufacturing/cost/price/capabilities equations as equitably as possible -- as if it never occurred to Apple that customers can always wish for something more.

Well, I think they're trying to just have a unique name. There is only the iMac...though several models and versions. There is only the MacBook Pro... distinguished only by the screen sizes. Perhaps they're trying to streamline everything.

It's possible this may be part of a longer term strategy for all their product lines. Instead of numbers, they may simply release new versions of each device. Perhaps.

Yep. The numbering was always a little weird. I don't even know if I have a MacBook Pro 6 or MacBook Pro 7. At some point iPhones were going to be silly -- imagine having to market the iPhone 12 to users who have the iPhone 11.

I suspect we'll see iPad and iPhone distinguished the way MacBooks and cars are -- by release year. You'll have an iPad (2012) or an iPhone (2013) or whatever.

Yep. And you know what's really funny? People who say this don't understand either marketing or Apple. They think marketing means convincing morons to buy inferior products. In reality, marketing includes determining consumer utility and tons of product planning and design work -- the compromises you mention -- that go into building something people want. So, in that stopped-clock-twice-a-day way, these folks are actually kind of right.

Of course, there's more to it, but it always amuses me to see people who assume marketing == advertising inadvertently hitting on an actual truth without even understanding it.

It's our fault. The Internet Stupid that followed from people declaring the iPhone 4S a "disappointment" simply because it wasn't called "iPhone 5" was so massive that Apple has decided we can't be trusted with model numbers any more.

"With Macs and iPods, they don't continue selling the old models alongside the new ones, unlike with iPhones and now iPads. So how will they distinguish the next new iPad from the current new one?"

By price, differences between specifications like screen resolution or by appending the time period to the name as Apple does in its support docs, i.e. the Macbook Pro (mid-2011), even though the marketing maintains the same name?

I cannot believe that some people think this is a genuine problem. File this under making a mountain out of a mole hill. I have never bought a Honda Accord XXII yet somehow, new and used car buyers are able to master the ability to differentiate between a product that maintains its name across generations. Why does anyone think consumer electronics buyers can't figure it out?

It's interesting: Apple is pretty clearly pushing the limits of manufacturing, component cost, battery life, device size, device weight, processing speed, memory, storage, and retail cost. It's fairly obvious that they've got all those compromises balanced and stretched tight as a drum (giving up three-tenths of a millimeter in device thickness in order to keep the battery life the same; keeping the capacities the same while delivering the new camera/new screen, etc.) Tim Cook was known for his mastery of the supply-chain economics; it's notable that he was Jobs' successor (rather than, for example, Forestal or Ive); this indicates Apple's essential focus on the balances and tolerances of hardware creation.

And yet, every time they launch a new product, I keep seeing "disappointed" reactions about what they "should" have added (more storage; Siri etc.) as if Apple wasn't working extremely hard to balance the manufacturing/cost/price/capabilities equations as equitably as possible -- as if it never occurred to Apple that customers can always wish for something more.

I sometimes wonder if this sense of "disappointment" is something that is localized to the United States, where a lot of the coverage originates. It's true, Americans want their gadgets slick but also at a good price. What are consumers from other places like?

As for me I'm just wondering why they chose to use the name "isight" for the camera, when for a while they've been switching to using the name facetime. Seems like a move backwards imo.

iSight is apparently the new marketing term for the rear camera, FaceTime for the front-facing one. It seems there’s an overall tightening/focusing going on at Apple right now. In OS X we’re seeing the end of i(Something) for those Apps that aren’t part of the iLife suite e.g. iCal becoming Calendar, iChat becoming Messages, etc… not only better internal logic, but better consistency between iOS and OS X.

To be honest I’m not going to be shocked if the MacBook Air/MacBook Pro line-up merge completely this year and the MacPro line disappears entirely leaving Apple with just the MacBook, iMac and Mac mini.

Yep. And you know what's really funny? People who say this don't understand either marketing or Apple. They think marketing means convincing morons to buy inferior products. In reality, marketing includes determining consumer utility and tons of product planning and design work -- the compromises you mention -- that go into building something people want. So, in that stopped-clock-twice-a-day way, these folks are actually kind of right.

Of course, there's more to it, but it always amuses me to see people who assume marketing == advertising inadvertently hitting on an actual truth without even understanding it.

Yeah, good point. There's a gradation between "product creation" and "marketing" that most people don't understand.

Another good example is Volkswagen's "New Beetle." I once had a bitter argument with somebody (a Marketing executive, of course) who kept insisting that the New Beetle was solely a triumph of "marketing," as in, they brought back an old product and "marketed" it again. Despite my best efforts, she could not seem to understand that the "New Beetle" is a completely different car, based on the new Audi chassis series, with (amongst other differences) the engine at the other end of the vehicle compared to the classic 1940s "Beetle" (Volkswagen Type I) design; water-cooled vs. air-cooled, etc. To her, none of that mattered; it was all just a "marketing triumph."

I cannot believe that some people think this is a genuine problem. File this under making a mountain out of a mole hill. I have never bought a Honda Accord XXII yet somehow, new and used car buyers are able to master the ability to differentiate between a product that maintains its name across generations. Why does anyone think consumer electronics buyers can't figure it out?

An astute observation. One thing people seem to forget is Apple has the single most comprehensive marketing research arm of any consumer [electronics device] manufacturer anywhere, by several orders of magnitude. Every time a customer walks in to an Apple store Apple is learning something about consumer behavior and how to better address that behavior. I would imagine the name change is based around customers coming in for an iPhone and saying something along the lines of “I’d like the $99 iPhone” or “I’d like the cheapest iPhone” or “I’d like the iPhone with 8GB of memory” … I suspect it’s the small minority of nerds that walk in and ask for an “iPhone 4S 32GB for the GSM network”

Apple’s product development cycle is unparalleled and unmatchable, there literally isn’t another CE manufacturer that can compete.

To be honest I’m not going to be shocked if the MacBook Air/MacBook Pro line-up merge completely this year and the MacPro line disappears entirely leaving Apple with just the MacBook, iMac and Mac mini.

Oh, man, spit it out! It's simply not possible with current technology to build a truly light and powerful machine, MacBooks Pro and Air won't be merged for a looong time...

I think they are trying to remove the distinction between versions of their tablet in the future. For the average idiot, Apple's target demographic, "iPad" is just about how complex they can go without confusing their users.

While the elite Android users have no difficulty distinguishing between the "Motorola Amaze Plus Pro 2" and the "HTC Infuse Neo XT"?

It's our fault. The Internet Stupid that followed from people declaring the iPhone 4S a "disappointment" simply because it wasn't called "iPhone 5" was so massive that Apple has decided we can't be trusted with model numbers any more.

I wasn't disappointed with the iPhone 4s because it wasn't called the iPhone 5. I was disappointed because I was expecting a bigger screen. Despite that I still think the iPhone 4s is a great phone, one of the best phones you can buy right now. It's silly to suggest that people other than idiots can't be honestly be disappointed with Apple products.

Also other manufactures can match Apple products in terms of specs, its iOs thats really makes them a step above. Its won't take Samsung long before they have displays that can compete with the display on the iPad. Just like there are phones displays that compete with the iPhone Retina display.

I think they are trying to remove the distinction between versions of their tablet in the future. For the average idiot, Apple's target demographic, "iPad" is just about how complex they can go without confusing their users.

While the elite Android users have no difficulty distinguishing between the "Motorola Amaze Plus Pro 2" and the "HTC Infuse Neo XT"?

:-)

Please don't do this. The crazy phones names giving to Android phones are the result of American carriers. Its not the fault of Android itself. If Att and Verizon could they would give the iPhone a extra name for their network but they can't. For example in Europe the Samsung Galaxy S2 is called just that on every carrier. When it came to the US the carriers decided to go crazy with the names. Yes the naming is bad but its not the fault of Android or the manufactures.

To be honest I’m not going to be shocked if the MacBook Air/MacBook Pro line-up merge completely this year and the MacPro line disappears entirely leaving Apple with just the MacBook, iMac and Mac mini.

Oh, man, spit it out! It's simply not possible with current technology to build a truly light and powerful machine, MacBooks Pro and Air won't be merged for a looong time...

I'm not seeing this. If you move the Macbook Pro to SSD-only and lose the optical drive... why can't it be the same form factor as the Air? The only think I can think of is CPU power, which leads to heat dissipation and battery capacity. And maybe that's enough to prevent the merge... but maybe not. Ports, maybe? But there's got to be an elegant way to offer the ports on the Pro without making the whole machine big.

Apple has already solved this problem. They solved it with the Mac. You can buy separately spec'd Macs and there is no distinction between the name - even if they are less powerful. The true distinction is the price.

So, today's "the new iPad" will be tomorrow's low-end iPad. That's it. In the same way you wouldn't get confused about buying a lower-spec'd MacBook Air, come next year you won't be confused when Apple sells a low-end iPad with an A5X chip for $400, and a higher-end iPad with an A6 chip for $500+.

The reason Apple can do this? Barring a jarring industrial design change, the next iPad will still be rather identical to the new iPad, with changes only being made internally - the same way MacBooks and iMacs are updated. So to a customer, you either buy the less-powerful iPad, or the more-powerful iPad for more money.

Previously iOS devices were differentiated only by storage space, and that justified the $100 price increments. However, now they will also be differentiated by specs. Specs still won't be why you buy one; they never have, and I don't suspect that to change. But you'll now know that for $400 you're getting a less powerful iPad in order to save money.

...but I wasn't even referring to the name there (I don't think so at least), I was just talking about the SoC design.

I had an earlier (more relevant to this topic) post in the thread though, that they sold the second gen iPod touch right along with the third gen iPod touch which looked identical. It created some slight confusion later on as some apps/games required the (massively better) third gen hardware but it wasn't a huge deal.

iPods do have version names. Generation 2, gen 3, etc. It just happens that Apple doesn't talk about them, so any time you do you need to put up pictures so people can figure out what they have. This isn't a big deal because the software is effectively the same. There aren't apps that run on a gen 3 nano that don't run on a gen 2 nano. You also don't really need that much tech support, the device is simple. The versions basically only matter for accessories.

For iPads, it is a different story. There will very much be apps that only work on "the new iPad". There will be tech support issues. To communicate both of these, it will be necessary to give it an identifier that can be recognized. They may try to keep that identifier out of the marketing material, but it's simply not functional to not have terminology at all. Especially since "the new iPad" and the "iPad 2" will be sold side-by-side.

they are simply trying to confuse new older customers. when someone walks into the apple store wanting to "get an ipad" the people will sell them the new one. little do they know that there is nothing physically different from the ipad 2, so if they dont know about it, they are more likely to buy the one the sales guy is pitching.

it's a good scheme and will make them more profit for having little differences between the new ipad and ipad 2

personally, im looking to pick up a used ipad 2 for <$300. the more you know...

The compatibility issue is a good point. I think this is a hint that Apple is looking to slow down performance bumps going forward. It may be that the iPad 3rd generation will be sort of the reference platform for the iPad going forward for the next 3-5 years. Apple may feel that we've reached that magic 'good enough' point where continued spec bumps will not be so dramatic. Just look at gaming consoles. They certainly *could* be upgraded significantly every 2 years but instead they exist for 5-8 year spans. I think that's where we're heading with both the iPhone and iPad.

iPods do have version names. Generation 2, gen 3, etc. It just happens that Apple doesn't talk about them, so any time you do you need to put up pictures so people can figure out what they have. This isn't a big deal because the software is effectively the same. There aren't apps that run on a gen 3 nano that don't run on a gen 2 nano. You also don't really need that much tech support, the device is simple. The versions basically only matter for accessories.

For iPads, it is a different story. There will very much be apps that only work on "the new iPad". There will be tech support issues. To communicate both of these, it will be necessary to give it an identifier that can be recognized. They may try to keep that identifier out of the marketing material, but it's simply not functional to not have terminology at all. Especially since "the new iPad" and the "iPad 2" will be sold side-by-side.

Apparently they're calling it "iPad (3rd generation)" like the iPods, "The new iPad" is just a descriptor I guess, which was really weird seeing written out on the keynote slides.

they are simply trying to confuse new older customers. when someone walks into the apple store wanting to "get an ipad" the people will sell them the new one. little do they know that there is nothing physically different from the ipad 2, so if they dont know about it, they are more likely to buy the one the sales guy is pitching.

I'm going to defer to your expertise on confusion. I don't see how this clever scheme works, given that the new one is the at the same price points, and why they would even sell the old one at a lower price if they didn't want to sell them.

I don't think there is anything wrong with how they're doing it. There are PLENTY of devices that have identical names, but slight differences in what processor/display it has.

All three iPads are roughly the same thing; so they all have the same name.

My iPad box says iPad, and my iPad2 box also says iPad.

Back just a year or two there was an iPod touch 8GB that was the older generation yet it was sold along side the new one.

Yes, sometimes its confusing and sometimes it irritating.

At least with Apple I have some idea/time to figure out what I'm getting. With the ASUS transformer naming convention I have very little time to figure out what one thing is before they either change the name, or they introduce a NEWER higher end model.

I'm saying this with the likelihood of having an ASUS/Samsung tablet in the future.

I'm not seeing this. If you move the Macbook Pro to SSD-only and lose the optical drive... why can't it be the same form factor as the Air? The only think I can think of is CPU power, which leads to heat dissipation and battery capacity. And maybe that's enough to prevent the merge... but maybe not. Ports, maybe? But there's got to be an elegant way to offer the ports on the Pro without making the whole machine big.

You hit the nail, I was thinking mainly about CPU. I don't care about the optical drive or an ethernet port. In fact, I'm thinking about exchanging my 2,5-year-old Dell Latitude E6500 for an SSD-equipped MacBook Pro (If only they cost less... Prices of these things in Poland are ridiculous... The cheapest 15'' MacBook Pro costs twice the average monthly salary! But well, I got a little off topic here...).

I'll rephrase - I don't think MacBook Pro/Air merge will be possible in the next 2-3 years. But I'd love to be surprised.

Cesar Torres / Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City.